|
Posted on 10.31.06 by Widge @ 4:50 am
16. Land of the Dead (2005) It still does my heart good be able to watch a fourth Romero Dead movie during my Halloween fest. 17. Bandh Darwaza (1990) This was one of the Bollywood horror movies I was looking forward to. My God, it was terrible. The plot made very little sense–even for a Bollywood film. The musical numbers were sub-par and the freaking vampire didn't even sing! What a disappointment. 18. The Thing (1982) This film is flat, freaking genius. I never get sick of watching it. 19. The Invisible Man (1933) 20. Curse of the Doll People (1960) 21. The Exorcist 3 (1990) I had the distinct pleasure of interviewing William Peter Blatty when the new unedited version of The Exorcist made the rounds in cinemas. I brought him a copy of Legion to sign and told him I greatly enjoyed this film, which he helmed. He seemed very pleased to hear this. I had the distinct impression he doesn't hear that enough. I'd like to point out how insane it is that Blatty has not directed a film since. I actually asked him why and he said he couldn't get a gig. He had been offered two films at the time I spoke with him: a civil war/ghost story/teen romance that was set to start production in a few weeks from when he was asked and a Pumpkinhead sequel. Scandalous. I hope he eventually gets a chance to get back in the chair. He's far too good to not direct again. And besides, George C. Scott is amazing. Always. Update: You know, if you think about it: exorcism makes no sense. God is supposed to be omnipotent. Therefore, he trumps Satan. Hands down. Because Satan is not omnipotent. So in an exorcism, if you think about it, a full-on Man of God is telling Satan (or the demon or the whatever) to get the hell (no pun intended) out of the victim in question. He's doing so as God's instrument, yes? So why doesn't Satan get lost? Why is it always a battle? There's no answer to this. Even in the Christian mythos, there's no answer. At least none that makes sense. If God is omnipotent, then the result should be that Satan turns tail at the first splash of holy water. The only other answer is that God is toying with the victim as part of those "mysterious ways." Story of Job and all that. And if that's the case, then what sort of God is that? What point can be so important to allow that sort of suffering? So I don't even know how exorcism makes sense in a God vs. Satan sort of setup. I wouldn't be sure how to even write that, because the internal logic within the mythos doesn't even make sense. What am I missing? 22. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.29.06 by Widge @ 8:27 pm
10. Day of the Dead (1985) 11. Re-Animator (1985) HELL YES! The bonesaw through the chest! That's how you know you've got the unrated edition! Now that's what I'm talking about! Ah, 1985. The final year of zombie goodness until recent years proved a resurgence in horror. 12. Frankenstein (1931) Cosette has just pointed out that the credits list "Based upon the novel by Mrs. Percy B. Shelley." Her name, Mary, is nowhere to be found. Cosette considers this quite fucked up of them. 13. Weird Woman (1944) One of Universal's Inner Sanctum mysteries starring Lon Chaney. It sounded the craziest of the six we had to choose from on the boxed set. Update: The fun of watching a film from the 40s is seeing it with a costume designer. "Wow, they have lycra out there on the Islands. And look–a pointy bra, too." 14. The Call of Cthulhu (2005) The H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's silent film adaptation of this story is without a doubt the best Lovecraft adaptation ever. If it's not perfection, I have no idea what is. Which just goes to show that classic horror should only be put in the hands of people who know what the hell they're doing. There's a reason it won the Chazzie for Best DVD last year. 15. The Wolf Man (1941) Lon Chaney, Jr., Claude Rains and Bela Lugosi in the only film to have all three together. How cool is that? 16. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.28.06 by Widge @ 6:16 pm
5. Dawn of the Dead (Extended Version, 1978) A freaking classic. "We're blowing it ourselves." That's the point of the zombie genre. That's the whole goddamn point. Actually, it's weird: I thought I had seen the extended version before, but perhaps not. Maybe I'm confusing it with the European cut of the film. I must be, because I don't remember the bit about Peter having two brothers that he's leaving behind. And there's plenty of other details and extended bits I had not seen before–though some I had. Like the standoff at the docks with Joe Pilato actually having lines and all. Granted, I have seen the film so many times and own so many versions, there's no telling how many different ways I've sliced the thing. Dawn the original is tighter, yes. But the extended version is quite satisfying for the hardcore fan like myself. 6. 28 Days Later (2002) The zombie revival started here. We all owe Danny Boyle a debt of gratitude. Watching the film again, it was easy to sit back and appreciate the way the film was shot–which is freaking startling. I fear the sequel. 7. The Mummy (1932) I would love to go back in time and sit in the cinema the first time an audience watched Karloff's eyes open. I bet they shat themselves. It would have been great to witness. 8. Prince of Darkness (1987) John Carpenter's last truly great film. I miss him. I wish he'd come back. "You are receiving this transmission from the year 1…9…9…" is one of the best bits of remix sample fodder in all eternity. And God…I miss Victor Wong too. 9. The Devil Bat (1940) We watched good Karloff and we will watch some bad Karloff. Now it seems fitting to watch some bad Lugosi, since Dracula is slated for later in the Fest. And this looks to be pretty goddamn bad. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.28.06 by Widge @ 4:17 am
Here are the bits in their terms and conditions that I thought were interesting: 5. Exclusivity. For any webpage or RSS feed that includes the Ad Code, you agree not to display or link to any other advertising (including but not limited to any listing) that is mapped to or responds to the content of the Ad Page. Fair enough. It kinda blows what plans I had to use YPN as an alt ad for AdSense. If one AdSense ad unit pops over to YPN, and not another–I'm in violation. So I'd have to run YPN exclusively on certain pages. I checked Google's terms of use and didn't see anything in here about this. From 9, though, here's where we get the problem others have run into: g. you are a US-based business and you are operating Your Site and/or Your RSS Feed solely for viewing and use by users within the US; and Wait, what? I thought those other reports were kidding, but being an internet site that gets traffic from six continents I can't "warrant and covenant" this in any shape or form. Nor do I want to block non-US users. WTF is this? And people actually call Google arrogant? From 13… d. the right to use your information for any internal business purpose; and "Internal business purpose"? And I have no problem with people crawling all over the site. Indexing is what search engines do, and they copy as well when they basically hold a cache of stuff. The Internet Archive copies for crying out loud. Just the fact that they feel the need to include this creeps me out a bit. Because basically they've given themselves the right here to print off hard copies of my site's content in hardback and sell them in bookstores. That would be kinda cool, and of course they don't want to do that, and of course anybody could probably go do that anyway–but it just seems odd they've given themselves such a broad thing here in writing. 14. Reserved Rights. In addition to any right not explicitly disclaimed or waived by Overture, we reserve the right to: Whereas Google promises to investigate if they feel something's fishy going on, and then it's "activity" and the use of software to screw with clicks, YPN gives themselves the ability to poke into anything they want having to do with me. Man, they might find out I use pseudoephedrine! Oh shit! And here's a fun one, from that same section: c. provide Ad Units that contain content other than ″pay for performance″ advertisements, including, but not limited to, Ad Units that contain advertisements or links to Overture or Yahoo! services, charitable or non-profit organizations, blog posts, blog search results and web search results, without including such advertisements, links or results in the basis for payment under this Agreement, even if we receive payment for them. They can hit me with ads and not pay me for them. Nice, huh? With Google I can opt out of charity ads if I feel like it. With Yahoo, they can advertise themselves all day long and I can't do shit about it. Nice. And I don't see anything in the Google TOS that says that those Google Checkout ads are freebies. Maybe they are. Maybe I'm making a penny off of them if anybody clicks. I dunno. But as I'm reading this, by signing up I'm giving Yahoo the right to make me US-only, copy my site's contents and use however they want, investigate me, and basically make me run ads for free as they so desire. No thanks. And for the record, yeah, I like Google just fine. Some have problems with them, but some have problems with lots of things. But I'm not writing this to cheerlead for Google. I just thought I'd double-check the TOS for Google to make sure I wasn't being paranoid for YPN at a different level that I was for Google. And I don't believe I was. If somebody knows something I missed, let me know. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.27.06 by Widge @ 9:44 pm
1. Night of the Living Dead (1968)  Holy crap. The vulture eye looks like Manute's eye from Sin City, just with a pupil in it. I'm going to have to put in a screen grab when this is up. This adaptation is really, really terrible. They've added an invalid girl lodger. The police suspect the protagonist from the beginning. And they've given a backstory to the protagonist's hatred for the eye. As Cosette points out, it's easy to see why the guy's so transfixed by the vulture eye. It's the most hideous prosthetic ever. Of course, it makes me want to kill the makeup artist and not the old man. Oh man. The invalid girl's the granddaughter of the old man. Update: Wait…it's his niece. But she calls him Granpa Joe? I can't tell if that's a pet name for him or if the writer was really that bad on continuity. I can't even tell if it matters or not. This is dreadful. Send help. Update: The old man calls out "Who's there?" It's "Tom," the protagonist, you twit. How can you know?  He's fucking backlit! That's how you know! Update: The protagonist is a former mental patient? Oh for fuck's sake. The only way this could be worse is to have Arnold in the lead and have a shootout at the end. Update: Holy crap. He's not calling out at the end due to the heart. He's screaming about the eye and he pulls it up from beneath the floor and it's beating like a heart! Oh my sweet crispy Jesus. Was the eye some kind of parasitical alien? Is that what they're trying to get across? Oh man. I'll be hard pressed to watch something worse than this this weekend. The pain. Oh God, the pain. 4. Orgy of the Dead (1965) "Time seems to stand still." Yes. It does. We're only eight minutes in and I feel like I've been watching this for days. Update: "Throw gold at her!" Yes. Heavy, gold bricks. Crush her, please. I've never seen more boring erotic dances in my life. Is that what life was really like before Cinemax? This is basically ninety minutes of topless chicks dancing in a cemetery? And Ed Wood adapted this from his novel? Was the novel five pages long or something? Then the Native American chick danced. After a few minutes, she took off her top. Then she danced some more. Then the stripper danced. After a few minutes, she took off her top. Then she danced some more. Then the chick they awoke from a crypt danced. After a few minutes…" Update: Holy shit! A Tusken Raider! Wait. No, it's a Mummy. Never mind. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.26.06 by Widge @ 1:10 am
David Bernstein talks about why the idiocy of Republicans shows the need for term limits. I couldn't disagree more. I don't believe it's the function of government to protect people from their own willful stupidity. Term limits are helmet laws for voters. You should not need a law that tells you're an adult, when riding around on a crotch rocket, it's probably a good idea to give your cranium some protection in case you suddenly find yourself skidding along the asphalt at escape velocity. However, if you do not wear a helmet, it's obvious what's inside your brain pan isn't much worth saving. If people are happy (can potentially be read as: too stupid and uninformed not to be unhappy) with their elected legislative representatives, why shouldn't they be allowed to re-elect them to as many terms as they so choose? Uninformed voters get the government they deserve. I see no reason to compel the stupid voters to wear a helmet. I dunno. Maybe I'm missing something. That's why I'm the shmoe in this equation. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.17.06 by Widge @ 1:40 pm
First of all, how does that work exactly? YouTube is based out of California. How can the EU seek to regulate something that's coming from offshore? If I'm reading this right, it would be upon YouTube to get the license, not the users who use YouTube. So if they try it, here's how YouTube should respond IMO. Post a video from the founders that says this: "If this goes into effect, we're looking at having to license YouTube and put even more restrictions in place for what you can and cannot post on our service. We have no interest in conforming with silly laws made by silly lawmakers who can't even tell the difference between television and the Internet. Therefore, if this goes into effect, we will have to cut off any European IP address from our service. If you are interested in keeping this from happening or think that governments should have better ways to spend their time, here's a URL where you can go to find all the contact information you need to get in touch with your government and tell them your thoughts on the matter. Thanks and good luck." Honestly, I think we need a coalition of folks who are dedicated to identifying people in government who use their power to try and regulate what other people do with their lives and get them the hell out of office. I don't care if you're a supposed conservative or supposed liberal–leave people the fuck alone. When was the last time a government passed a law that extended freedom instead of taking it away? Leave us alone already. Jesus. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.17.06 by Widge @ 12:38 am
Here's the word. Get ready for taxes, the ultimate virus, to attack stuff like Second Life. Wonderful. I would feel much better about this if the government actually knew what the hell it was doing with the money it already collects instead of trying to find more. And for those of you who think this is reasonable, then you're obviously not being taxed enough. Feel free to donate the amount that will make you feel better about yourselves. I'm sure a call to any government agency, local or federal, will get you all the info you need about how to make a donation that will soothe your aching conscience. Just leave the rest of us the fuck out of it. P.S. Although this commenter on Digg where I found the article, may actually have the right of it. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.13.06 by Widge @ 6:14 pm
Kudos to Slashfood for presenting a problem, then presenting the solution. Problem: kids watch too much advertising on television targeting them for stuff that's bad for them. Solution: let them watch less television. I know that sounds blindingly obvious, but it escapes many. Limiting the amount of television a kid can watch involves parenting, and that actually takes effort. So. Oh, and here's what I love about the article they link to:
Okay, hold up there, Sherlock. Let me keep anybody from straining themselves. Food marketers–whose job it is to market–trying to hook young children as lifelong customers? Um, fuck yes they're trying to do this. With every fiber of their being, you dumbshits. I'll take whatever leftover funding you had for your ridiculous study now. You're welcome.
Request? Yes, I can see that. So wait…they requested it from whom? God? The Maker machine in their kitchen? The dog? No, last time I checked, three-year-olds can't drive out to the store and pick up a pack of Twinkies or whatever stuff kids are eating these days. They have to have adults to do that for them. Usually adults that spend the majority of time with kids that age are parents, but if they're just giving kids whatever they want, with no regard for nutrition or anything else, then they're not really parenting, are they?
You know, there's a really simple way to have a Commercial-Free Childhood, Diane. It's called Turn the Fucking Television Off. Last I checked, there weren't any advertisements in the best children's books. Nor do I remember in my childhood there being a bunch of billboards that followed me around while I was running about the neighborhood. Whose responsibility is it to protect kids from things? Right. That pesky P-word again. And what is "viewers' trust"? Who the hell trusts a channel on television, anyway? What exactly are you trusting them to do? Now, it's not clear in here that anybody's looking to restrict ads through legislation–they don't mention the G word explicitly–but when we've got studies that are still searching for evidence that kids are being marketed to (which, in my mind, is like 60 Minutes doing investigative reporting about that fishy heliocentric theory) and this entire conversation happening without parents being mentioned (except here and on Slashfood–another blog), then I get worried. It's much easier to abdicate responsibility to Nanny Government than to actually tell your kid, no, you can't have a cupcake. Filed under: General BS
|
|
Posted on 10.11.06 by Widge @ 2:27 am
Trying to get a book about burning books banned during Banned Books Week. Priceless.
But check it out: the father "looked through the book and found the following things wrong with the book: discussion of being drunk, smoking cigarettes, violence, "dirty talk," references to the Bible and using God's name in vain. He said the book's material goes against their religions [sic] beliefs." So no real profanity for the most part, just stuff that they don't do. That's offensive. Things different than what they believe = offensive. Are you getting this? If you can't have a book without drinking, smoking, violence, and using the Lord's name in vain–then you shouldn't have a book. At all. Can we just put all of these people in a walled community somewhere where they can be safe from…you know, real life? Honestly, think about it: who's going to be the first people to retreat into cyberspace and establish their own version of Second Life where they can be free to interact with one another in a godly fashion? The religious whackjobs. There's a short story in there for somebody. I don't feel like writing it, but somebody run with it, would you? Filed under: General BS
|
| previous posts » |
John Robinson is a writer of prose, poetry and comics who also writes under
the pseudonym of Widgett Walls.
This is my latest book. Short stories written especially for you, or at least someone who reminded me a lot of you at the time.
